News AMD Ryzen 9000 CPU family compared in Cinebench — purported scores for the 9900X, 9700X, and 9600X shared

[Guardians Bane]

Why do you continually dodge the current issue with Intel CPUs? You can put up graphs all day long about things not related to the crisis Intel is in right now with 13th & 14th gen degrading/oxidized/crashing CPUs, but it doesn't change what's happening.

Head in the sand kind of thing. Lol

 

[TheHerald]

Why do you continually dodge the current issue with Intel CPUs? You can put up graphs all day long about things not related to the crisis Intel is in right now with 13th & 14th gen degrading/oxidized/crashing CPUs, but it doesn't change what's happening.

Head in the sand kind of thing. Lol

How am I dodging it? I'm posting the relevant data that show the severity of the situation instead of just posting feelings. According to the data current intel seems to be way less stable than 12th gen but way more stable than Zen 3 and zen 4. So buyers need to beware, if stability is of outmost importance you need to go for 12th, 13th, 14th and lastly zen 3 and zen 4,on that order.

 

[-Fran-]

How am I dodging it? I'm posting the relevant data that show the severity of the situation instead of just posting feelings. According to the data current intel seems to be way less stable than 12th gen but way more stable than Zen 3 and zen 4. So buyers need to beware, if stability is of outmost importance you need to go for 12th, 13th, 14th and lastly zen 3 and zen 4,on that order.

With one very specific data source and you're ignoring the criticism going your way by being incoherently defensive.

Just pointing this out and stop here.

Regards.

 

[Guardians Bane]

How am I dodging it? I'm posting the relevant data that show the severity of the situation instead of just posting feelings. According to the data current intel seems to be way less stable than 12th gen but way more stable than Zen 3 and zen 4. So buyers need to beware, if stability is of outmost importance you need to go for 12th, 13th, 14th and lastly zen 3 and zen 4,on that order.

If you think Puget Systems PCs and workstations show what the rest of the world is experiencing, you're just deluding yourself.

Infact there's an article on Tom's now all about it and why Pugets results do not equate to real-world statistics in the current situation. So keep trying.

 

[TheHerald]

If you think Puget Systems PCs and workstations show what the rest of the world is experiencing, you're just deluding yourself.

Infact there's an article on Tom's now all about it and why Pugets results do not equate to real-world statistics in the current situation. So keep trying.

Yes of course, all the data that don't align with your opinion are wrong, I know, don't worry.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Yes of course, all the data that don't align with your opinion are wrong, I know, don't worry.

Since you won't do your own research, I'll just leave this here for you.

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...e-rate-data-cites-conservative-power-settings

As you can see from the article, Puget Systems has tweaked the BIOS for their systems and it is a contributing factor to the slower degradation of said CPUs.

And again... Puget Systems is NOT representative of the rest of the world.

And... The failure rates of both AMD and Intel in their systems is nothing surprising. It's par for the course. No silicon is ever 100% good! Testing by Puget is great! Lowing the voltage of the higher end CPUs is great! Very little loss of performance. So yeah, idc about who's on top, Intel or AMD. I'm CPU agnostic. But I do keep up with tech news and when I see something that's a bit off and surprising, I do my research.

Do a bit more research on your own if you're going to try and preach your choice of manufacturer as god.

 

[TheHerald]

Since you won't do your own research, I'll just leave this here for you.

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...e-rate-data-cites-conservative-power-settings

As you can see from the article, Puget Systems has tweaked the BIOS for their systems and it is a contributing factor to the slower degradation of said CPUs.

Uhm, I did my own research and that has been my point the last few days. That puget shows that if you use Intel and AMD defaults - Intel chips are much more stable. You didn't discover something I didn't already know bud.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Uhm, I did my own research and that has been my point the last few days. That puget shows that if you use Intel and AMD defaults - Intel chips are much more stable. You didn't discover something I didn't already know bud.

You're intentionally saying these things about AMD being worse when Intel is currently having a breakdown in 14th &14th. Anyone who reads your defense of Intel when showing graphs and such, would conclude you're saying AMD is worse than Intel according to said information. So people reading your comments will conclude AMD is worse than Intel in the current crisis. Which is absolutely false and you could be pushing people to think they can buy Intel safely. Which even Intel says is false.

You're a smart person. You know what you're doing. Chill out and just accept that in the current environment and is absolutely a better choice to avoid gambling on whether Intel CPUs will crash or not. People might spend hard earned money on products that. Very well be no good, until a permanent fix is found.

 

[TheHerald]

You're intentionally saying these things about AMD being worse when Intel is currently having a breakdown in 14th &14th. Anyone who reads your defense of Intel when showing graphs and such, would conclude you're saying AMD is worse than Intel according to said information. So people reading your comments will conclude AMD is worse than Intel in the current crisis. Which is absolutely false and you could be pushing people to think they can buy Intel safely. Which even Intel says is false.

I'm just repeating what the intel (puget graph) says. Are you saying they are lying? If you have evidence to support that, please share it, cause I'd really like to know.

You're a smart person. You know what you're doing. Chill out and just accept that in the current environment and is absolutely a better choice to avoid gambling on whether Intel CPUs will crash or not. People might spend hard earned money on products that. Very well be no good, until a permanent fix is found.

According to the data if you are running intel / amd defaults - intel is a safer bet for stability according to Puget. My or your own personal opinion is really irrelevant here.

 

[bit_user]

According to the data if you are running intel / amd defaults - intel is a safer bet for stability according to Puget.

Puget's data applies to Puget's systems and users. It should not be taken to apply to contexts like gaming systems or usage patterns.

Stability = field failure rates, where Ryzen 7000 is enjoying a distinct advantage.

My or your own personal opinion is really irrelevant here.

The way you construe data always matters.

 

[TheHerald]

Puget's data applies to Puget's systems and users. It should not be taken to apply to contexts like gaming systems or usage patterns.

Stability = field failure rates, where Ryzen 7000 is enjoying a distinct advantage.

Not really, stability = field + shop failure rates. Just because the Ryzen 7000 are more faulty, to the point of failing so fast that they don't even make it out of the door (puget's door that is) doesn't mean they are more stable.

 

[bit_user]

Not really, stability = field + shop failure rates.

See, you can't exclude your bias from your interpretation of the data.

To Puget's users, which is the only thing the data describes, the Ryzen systems are the second most stable, because they don't see those "shop" failures.

If I built a system and got a DoA, I would count it as a DoA rather than characterizing the system as unstable. I only start counting failures towards instability once the system has passed the initial burn-in period. Anything before then counts as defective or a case of infant mortality.

​

Just because the Ryzen 7000 are more faulty, to the point of failing so fast that they don't even make it out of the door

You don't know how they count "shop" failures. It could be systems that don't even boot, for instance. That's not unstable, that's just plain DoA.

Again, you also don't know how those shop failures are distributed in time, but you freely make assumptions that benefit your preferred narrative. If you were being honest, you'd have to acknowledge that this gap in the data limits our ability to make forward-looking predictions of their "shop" failure rates.

 

[TheHerald]

See, you can't exclude your bias from your interpretation of the data.

To Puget's users, which is the only thing the data describes, the Ryzen systems are the second most stable, because they don't see those "shop" failures.

I don't think puget users are special. If you configure 2 systems identically your failure rates will be similar. Being a puget user won't give you different results, I have no idea why you assume it will.

If I built a system and got a DoA, I would count it as a DoA rather than characterizing the system as unstable. I only start counting failures towards instability once the system has passed the initial burn-in period. Anything before then counts as defective or a case of infant mortality.

You are not getting a DOA though. You are getting a system that is on the verge of dying that's why it bsods or crashes. Having a large number of your CPUs highly unstable straight from the factory or within a few days of usage doesn't equate high QC. In fact I'd argue between zen 3 and zen 4 there was a HUGE drop in quality control by AMD. You cannot convince me that shipping unstable CPUs is better than shipping stable cpus that fail within 6 months or a year or two. That sounds completely irrational to me. Zen 3 - by large - were fully stable when shipped from the factory. Zen 4 were not.

You don't know how they count "shop" failures. It could be systems that don't even boot, for instance. That's not unstable, that's just plain DoA.

Again, you also don't know how those shop failures are distributed in time, but you freely make assumptions that benefit your preferred narrative. If you were being honest, you'd have to acknowledge that this gap in the data limits our ability to make forward-looking predictions of their "shop" failure rates.

They have it in their article. It's systems that crash or bsod. They say it clearly.

 

[bit_user]

I don't think puget users are special. If you configure 2 systems identically your failure rates will be similar.

Nope. It also depends heavily on your usage patterns.

 

[TheHerald]

Nope. It also depends heavily on your usage patterns.

And the home user will use his PC more heavily than people that are buying workstation systems? I mean come on now...let's just stop it. We all love amd, we all love bashing at intel but let's not grasp at straws.

 

[Guardians Bane]

I'm just repeating what the intel (puget graph) says. Are you saying they are lying? If you have evidence to support that, please share it, cause I'd really like to know.


According to the data if you are running intel / amd defaults - intel is a safer bet for stability according to Puget. My or your own personal opinion is really irrelevant here.

Changing the entire topic. This is about the fact that Intel currently is not reliable.

Period.

Not stable.

Crashing.

BSOD.

You can make excuses and be as disingenuous with how you portray these facts.

Have a good night

 

[bit_user]

And the home user will use his PC more heavily than people that are buying workstation systems?

No, I mean like gaming vs. what professional workstation buyers are running.

I mean come on now...let's just stop it. We all love amd, we all love bashing at intel but let's not grasp at straws.

From my perspective, you're the one grasping at straws. You found a tiny sliver of data that you like, and are trying to imply things it simply doesn't support.

 

[TheHerald]

Changing the entire topic. This is about the fact that Intel currently is not reliable.

Period.

Not stable.

Crashing.

BSOD.

You can make excuses and be as disingenuous with how you portray these facts.

Have a good night

That's your opinion though.

According to the data - if you or your mobo follows the intel defaults like puget does - 13th and 14th are less reliable than 12th gen and a lot more reliable than zen 3 and zen 4.

 

[TheHerald]

No, I mean like gaming vs. what professional workstation buyers are running.


From my perspective, you're the one grasping at straws. You found a tiny sliver of data that you like, and are trying to imply things it simply doesn't support.

It's currently the best data we actually have but doesn't show what you want it to show so it's a tiny silver. Sure.

 

[bit_user]

It's currently the best data we actually have but doesn't show what you want it to show so it's a tiny silver. Sure.

Yes, and... if you're going to fill in gaps in the data with speculation, you should clearly spell out what assumptions you're making. That's the bare minimum. Don't pretend the data proves something it doesn't.

 

[TheHerald]

Yes, and... if you're going to fill in gaps in the data with speculation, you should clearly spell out what assumptions you're making. That's the bare minimum. Don't pretend the data proves something it doesn't.

What is the speculation im making?

 

[Guardians Bane]

Yes, and... if you're going to fill in gaps in the data with speculation, you should clearly spell out what assumptions you're making. That's the bare minimum. Don't pretend the data proves something it doesn't.

The Herald... They just don't want to admitt the problems Intel is facing. Sticking to their line "Intel is stable if...".

Problem with that line of thinking is that the rest of the world has crashing CPUs. And since there isn't any reliable data to show the failure rates and all we have is anecdotal evidence, Herald just blindly says what they want with their "tiny sliver". I don't think anyone can say anything to make them admitt to themselves that even Intel acknowledges the issue and ,"Intel baseline" doesn't fix the issue. They just keep ignoring the fact that Intel tried to change CPU settings through a BIOS patch already and it kinda worked in a few circumstances. If it was just the BIOS then there wouldn't be any problems now or 2 class action suites investigating Intel and that oxidation is still an issue as well.

I feel bad for that person, even though, I'm sure they don't want it if see the need for it.
"The most concerning part of all of this to us here at Puget Systems is the rise in the number of failures in the field, which we haven't seen this high since 11th Gen. We're seeing ALL of these failures happen after 6 months, which means we do expect elevated failure rates to continue for the foreseeable future and possibly even after Intel issues the microcode patch.

That's your opinion though.

According to the data - if you or your mobo follows the intel defaults like puget does - 13th and 14th are less reliable than 12th gen and a lot more reliable than zen 3 and zen 4.

They don't follow Intel defaults. They say that themselves. They have their own settings. Which slows down any degradation.

"The most concerning part of all of this to us here at Puget Systems is the rise in the number of failures in the field, which we haven't seen this high since 11th Gen. We're seeing ALL of these failures happen after 6 months, which means we do expect elevated failure rates to continue for the foreseeable future and possibly even after Intel issues the microcode patch. Based on this information, we are definitely experiencing CPU failures higher than our historical average, especially". From Puget themselves.

Cope

Lol